Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: No court can execute the decisions unless it is having territorial jurisdiction over the property or the person against whom a decision is to be executed. The Court which gave the decision can transfer the matter to the court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the person or property.
Facts: A decision is given by the court at New Delhi on a contractual matter against X in a suit between X and Y. X is a resident of Maharashtra and he has properties in Maharashtra and Gujarat.
पर्याय
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to Court at Maharashtra only
New Delhi court can execute the decision because it had the jurisdiction to decide the matter so it can execute also
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to court at Gujarat only
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat
Advertisements
उत्तर
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat
Explanation:
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharashtra or Gujarat. This is according to the principle that the Court which gave the decision can transfer the matter to the court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the person or property.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
Suppose a situation arises where a recusal by a Judge is used as a means to allow a party to choose its own bench, will it be axiomatic from the passage that such recusal is proper, morally or/and constitutionally?
Mark the best option:
What was the 93rd amendment to the Constitution?
Which of the following means 'to be certified'?
The single instance of the unanimous election of the President of India so far was the election of
Which of the following provided the term of office of a member of the Rajya Sabha for 6 years?
Which of the following is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution in India?
In which year the National Human Rights Commission was formed?
Which of the following Articles contain provisions regarding panchayats?
Scheduled Tribe status is
The Inter State Council has been constituted based on the recommendation of
